Ice Cream Jonsey wrote: Sun Sep 29, 2019 7:42 pm
Hardly anyone is on [ifMud] any more, which makes me pretty sad.
What do you expect? This isn't 1986. As soon as you say "telnet" (if their eyes don't glaze over and move on to some other subject) , this requires - if you're not normally doing some form of remote logins in text mode - finding and installing a new program, working in text-only mode, entering DOS, and losing many of the features of Windowing operating systems. Essentially everything you could get from this you can get through an http(s)-based chat server or BBS like this forum.
Just use an actual cost-benefit calculation intentionally the way most people do subconsciously without much thought. What exactly does IfMud "buy" you that justifies the effort and trouble to use it vs. everything else available? The "cost" involved is just too high for the small - perhaps I should say negligible - "benefit" of this service. Thus only the truly dedicated or those who already have a telnet client installed are going to bother.
It's like when I mentioned I found an open-source package I wanted to take a look at and decided as long as I was installing one of the source code management tools I might as well install the other two. Since I was making a time investment already, it's worth spending the minor extra amount to be compatible with probably 100% of any SCM used by any project I might want to investigate in the future.
But if I wasn't interested in programming, and understanding code source bases, I might not have gone to the trouble in the first place.
Ice Cream Jonsey wrote: Sun Sep 29, 2019 7:42 pm
And then the telnet BBS I set up 5 or 6 years ago that really does not get used much is also active.
And to which you got all pissed off when I quoted something there because it would get indexed on Google. What I should have said was "who the fuck cares?" We're not meeting there discussing Presidential assasination plots, trade secrets requiring secrecy, or anything that would either get us in trouble, damage our business if disclosed publicly, or really be of interest to anyone else. And it's troublesome to access and use.
Older equipment and systems become abandoned as newer and more interesting things come out, and only the fanatical or dedicated - and the difference (if any) between the two may be difficult to detetmine - have much interest in them.
Mainframe (and minicomputer) computing was important to a lot of people until PC server systems became so powerful that people could switch from mainframes and minis to PCs for most computing problems. Unless you run certain types of applications such as those requiring "five nines" or better reliability, or very-high usage threshholds (PCs can stand about 30% load before they get locked up; a typical mainframe has no trouble at better than 80% load) in which case mainframes provide unparalleled reliability, scalability, stability, and even cost advantages.
Oh yes, stability. How long does your PC stay running and how often does it have to be rebooted for those ever frequent system upgrades from Microsoft? Uptime for mainframes - time between reboots - can be expressed in
years! Even the operating system can be patched while it is still running. PC unreliability is actually dangerous. Published reports tell of how there was a problem in a PC-based weapons system that was supposed to be frequently rebooted, but nobody said how long "frequently" was (once a week? Twice a month? Turns out it was supposed to be rebooted at least
once a day). This caused a failure during the Gulf War when the weapons system missed an incoming missile that people died as a result.
Oh yes, cost advantages. A typical IBM z/System might cost $75,000, and can handle the load equivalent to about 1,000 rack-mounted servers, in a box the size of a refrigerator, has three connections (power, internrt, and Fibre Channel if you run more than one) and uses maybe 600 watts of power. Those 1,000 servers will cost maybe $500,000, use 100 kilowatts of electricity and require multiple thousand wires, plus wiring harnesses. The mainframe can be in a typical office while servers have to be in their own room because of the heat generated. Oh, plus huge air conditioning costs. Even with IBM's software licensing charges - which can be avoided by using LINUX for z/System - the mainframe is still a good - if not the only - choice for anyone doing large-scale computing, which is why 100% of the 50 largest banks and insurance companies, among other businesses, continue to use them.
Also, the care and feeding of mainframes require far fewer system administrators than PC server systems for the same amount of wirkload.
In fact it's estimated that at only about 20 large application systems a mainframe can be less expensive than PC server operations. And they can handle alk sorts of workloads. I once worked at a division of Pacific Bell where they used their DMS-100 also as a network drive for sharing files, with the software driver it looked exactly like the "D:" drive (similar to a NAS or Dropbox today). While a DMS-100 is a large computer, that's not what people usually buy it for. It's a telephone switch, used either as a PBX or as a tekephione company Central Office.
If mainframe computing wasn't such a fantastic value proposition over PC-based servers, for larger workloads, nobody would put up with the really difficult-to-use IBM mainframe software and the trouble and effort it requires.
But only those familiar with those type systems would know these facts.